Using the ongoing regional tumult as a rationale to discuss exports of U.S. oil and gas obtained mainly via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), the lack of discussion on climate change doesn't mean the issue isn't important to national security types.

“The last thing Putin and his cronies wants (sic) is competition from the United States of America in the energy race,” Landrieu declared in her opening statement. “Tyrants and dictators throughout history have had many reasons to fear revolutions, and this U.S. energy revolution is one they should all keep their eyes on!” More on that later.

- Adam Sieminski: Before taking the seat as head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in 2012, Sieminski worked in the fossil fuel finance sector.

“From 2005 until March 2012, he was the chief energy economist for Deutsche Bank, working with the bank's global research and trading units,” explains his EIA biography. “From 1998 to 2005, he served as the director and energy strategist for Deutsche Bank's global oil and gas equity team.”

Author of a 2009 paper titled, “Organized Hypocrisy as a Tool of Climate Diplomacy,” commissioned by the fossil fuel funded American Enterprise Institute, Montgomery is not a climate change denier. He just doesn't think anything should be done to tackle climate change.

“Trying to bribe or coerce unwilling countries into curtailing their GHG emissions threatens to cause more harm than good,” he wrote in the American Enterprise Institute paper.

“First, if the U.S. were to act [on climate change] without solid assurance of comparable efforts by China, India, and other industrialized countries, its efforts would make almost no difference to global temperature, especially if industrial production and associated emissions are simply exported to other countries. Second, even global action is unlikely to yield U.S. benefits commensurate with the costs it would incur in making steep GHG emission cuts. Third, globally, even with moderate emission reductions, benefits would not be much greater than costs, and, fourth, conflicting economic interests will make international agreements on mandatory limits unstable.”

Although dictatorships such as those in Libya and Turkmenistan are “often a threat to their own people, they do not harbor or finance groups that threaten U.S. interests,” Goldwyn once said in a Congressional hearing in speaking to human rights concerns of doing business in these countries.

“While he was Chevron’s principal international representative in Washington, he worked closely with the White House, Capitol Hill, federal departments and agencies, foreign governments, international financial institutions, and the foreign policy community on international economic policy affecting worldwide energy investments,” explains Chow's CSIS biographical sketch. “Between 1989 and 1991, he was based in Beijing as Chevron’s country manager for China.”

“Passing this legislation sends the clear signal that America intends to take full advantage of our energy resources…to ensure the lifeline of U.S. gas supplies will be available to our allies, and that we will stand firm to Putin and supplant Russia’s influence,” said U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) in a press release announcing the legislation.

As investigative journalist Lee Fang revealed, subcommittee “staff counsel Patrick Currier is a former lobbyist for gas and energy companies, including the Gas Processors Association, FirstEnergy Corp, and the CCS Alliance…[and] chief counsel Tom Hassenboehler is a former lobbyist for America’s Natural Gas Alliance, one of the most vocal trade groups pushing to build more LNG export capacity.”

Fang also discovered Subcommittee chair Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) holds between $250,000 and $500,000 in stock with both ExxonMobil and Chevron. Whitfield has taken $70,500 from the oil and gas industry during this election cycle and took $126,500 from the industry during his 2012 race for office.

Further, manager of press operations for the Subcommittee on Energy and Power Charlotte Baker formerly worked as an Account Executive at DCI Group, a PR and lobbying firm with close ties to the Republican Party and the oil and gas industry.

According to LinkedIn, Baker worked on “advocacy and strategic communications campaigns for organizations faced with regulatory challenges, focusing on energy, environment, and public safety issues.”

“To weaken Putin and strengthen our European allies, the Committee should be focused on the export of American drilling technology and know-how to allies so they can develop their own domestic shale gas resources,” reads the press release. “It is much better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish.”

While far from a robust analysis of climate change and environmental concerns, Rosenberg did mention “concerns about the environmental and community effects of the energy boom and further growth in unconventional energy globally” during her testimony.

“Energy is one of the investment fields Carlyle specializes in, and it recently escalated its energy holdings by buying a $424 million stake in NGP Energy Capital Management (for 'Natural Gas Partnership'),” explained Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

Comments

The world flares 150 million cubic meters of gas per year. Russia, is the worlds gas flaring leader at about 40 million cubic meters. Nigeria comes in second at about 15 million cubic meters. The US isn't a slouch at about 10 million cubic meters. I eyeballed these numbers off a chart. If accuracy is important to you, do your own damn number collecting.

That's a lot. But, really does this add up to say European's import needs? From the EIA on nat. gas consumption, is 18,684 billion cubic feet. Jeebus, now I have to convert this. Ok, Europe consumes about 500 million cubic meters of gas per year. Wow, we're talking about a third of what Europe needs is flared or dumped into the atmoshere.

Iran holds the world largest conventional gas supply in the world. Enough gas is produced in the Mideast and Africa to supply Europe. Russia and North Dakota simply dump most of their gas in the air. As do others. We dont' need to be transporting domestic gas to Europe. There's closer suppliers.

Maybe our best and brightest just want another war. There is this seeemingly (and seemly) really weird nexus between population control environmentalists, security freaks, and oilmen. Or maybe we can get someone at Breakthrough Institute, CFR, or New York Times to explain this to us domestic environmentalists types?

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE